Argumentative Essay: Moral Rules Enslave People

Introduction

In a world that has thrived on moral philosophy for thousands of years, do the moral rules in these societies have an impact on the freedom of people, or in other words, do they enslave people? In the past, many philosophical theories on moral values have been established. Most of these theories interpret the aspect of moral values differently and have distinctive characteristics. Over the years, scholars have put a lot of effort into understanding the duty of moral values in society. Moreover, a lot of theories have prioritized on the context of human freedom concerning moral values. To interpret these theories regarding moral values, it is crucial that one understands what is wrong and right, the moral obligations. It is also vital that one understands the importance of moral values, expressly the moral responsibility towards other people in society.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

However, the theories put in place to explain moral rules and values have objections and strengths which need to be explored when understanding the whole issue of moral rules and freedom. For instance, John Mill's theory of Utilitarianism emphasizes the importance of respecting moral rules, which he states maximize happiness and promote the general wellbeing of the people involved.

Moral Freedom: Kantian Theory

The aspect of freedom in moral values is something that has led to very diverse viewpoints on this issue. One of the theories that argue much about moral freedom is Kant's theory. Immanuel Kant's (1724-1804) theory incorporates the element that moral values deny people freedom in the context that they wrongfully use human beings as instruments to achieve other purposes (Krasseman 73). This one of the most crucial elements of the Kantian theory of moral values. Unlike another theorist. Immanuel Kant argued that the Categorical Imperative is an essential and objective principle that must be followed irrespective of circumstances. The Categorical Imperative (CI) is the "supreme principle of morality" (Kant 130)

Kant further adds that any action that does not follow the categorical imperative is morally wrong. Kant states that the consequences of actions are less important, and focus should be put on the decision why something is done rather than the result. Kant argues that a person's level of morality can only be decided on the cause of action rather than the consequences of the committed actions. Therefore, in some way, moral values may limit the freedom of the people because consequences do not matter.

Kant emphasizes the point of moral freedom in that moral rules requires that for the rules to be followed to achieve morality. Kant states that despite any circumstances, regardless of the action's consequences, the moral rules must be upheld. He further adds that there must be goodwill in every action; therefore, any action committed to meet only the self-interest of the people involved does not warrant that it is a good moral action (Bayefsky &Rachel 814). Kant focuses on acting out of reason rather than the benefit we get from the action. The idea of doing something good without worrying about the consequence is crucial in this theory, as it is referred to as goodwill. Therefore, it is committed to adhering to moral principles without depending on any particular action is what makes an action out of goodwill. Therefore.in goodwill, the decisions must be determined solely by the moral demands. These moral demands are created from free goodwill (Bayefsky &Rachel 816). Therefore, these moral actions do not, in any way, limit one's freedom to decide.

Objections

This deontological theory may fail to meet somebody's reasonable needs. For instance, some situations may need one to lie, but according to Kant's theory of moral values, one should not lie even when the consequence is unfavorable (Bayefsky &Rachel 814). This kind of moral reasoning leads to many objections due to its unrealistic aspect. There are several objections to the Kantian theory. Kant's failure to focus on the consequences of actions may not be reasonable. For instance, in the case where one commits wrong in the process of doing good.

According to Kant, moral action committed is motivated by somebody's reasoning, not the case. Therefore, Kant's theory of moral freedom is somehow irrelevant and vague, making it harder to understand the categorical imperative. In such a case, the moral rules may limit the freedom of people because, in some situations, breaking of these moral rules is necessary in the case of severe consequences.

Respect for Persons

However, Kant's theory also has its strengths, which include its emphasis on respect for persons. Kant states that respect for persons plays a crucial role in the lives of every member of society (Bayefsky &Rachel 810). This element ensures that the aspect of impartiality and consistency in moral action is followed. Kant also outlines the intrinsic value that every human being holds. This promotes respect for rights by recognizing the aspect of dignity in human life. The inherent worth of every human being means that everyone should enjoy equal rights. Kant's theory is, therefore, autonomous hence providing a basis for fairness, equality, and justice.

Utilitarianism Argument

On the other hand, the utilitarianism approach argues differently compared to the Kantian theory. According to this theory, the actions committed by somebody can only be considered morally right if they increase or instead lead to wellbeing. In other words, the maxim is good. Therefore, Utilitarianism aims to increase the happiness that is gotten from every action. Thus, moral rules followed in this context play a crucial role in that they maximize satisfaction; therefore, a positive impact on human freedom (Mill 129). According to this theory, moral rules are in no manner barriers to moral freedom or instead do not enslave people who follow them. This is because the end goal of these ethical rules is to maximize pleasure.

Utilitarianism may also be classified depending on the actions. For instance, preference utilitarianism is crucial because not only does it focus on pleasures, but it also concentrates on the utility obtained from one's preference (Mill 130). Moreover, Utilitarianism primarily act -Utilitarianism is very crucial because it allows one to measure the moral value of every action that one commits. This is important because it allows one to understand perfectly the consequence of every action committed. In addition, rule utilitarianism plays a vital role in reducing the burden that act utilitarianism imposes on reasoning. This kind of Utilitarianism ensures that moral rules put in place promote everyone's best interest.

However, Utilitarianism also has its objections. Some people argue that this theory is demanding since it focuses too much on the motivation to achieve happiness in our actions. The other weakness of Utilitarianism is that it focuses on the consequences of our actions, some of which we can't even predict (Bayefsky &Rachel 812). The result of this is the inability to know the outcomes of our moral action, thus limiting our moral freedom.

Generally, moral rules play a very crucial role in the lives of everyone in the world. The importance of moral rules cannot be underestimated since moral rules are the guiding actions or principles which everyone should follow. However, some people may feel that moral rules deny them the freedom to do what they should be doing. A simple example is Kant's theory, whose moral requirement is that one adheres with the ethical rules without worrying about the consequences of such a decision (Bennis et al., 190). Another example is the utilitarian rule, which violates the aspect of rationality, meaning it has no justification. Some of these examples make these moral rules purposeful in the context where they deny people freedom, thus restraining them from doing whatever they want to.

However, moral action gives freedom to people in very many ways. For instance, utilitarian's interpret good with wellbeing, pleasure, and, most importantly, happiness. Moreover, deontological theories also give people freedom in the context that they prohibit some actions even when there is a good consequence or when there is a benefit to everyone else (Krasemann 72). Secondly, moral rules, as stated by the Kantian theory, grant permission to everybody to do what is right without worrying about making everyone else benefit. The latter offers freedom in that there is no demand to do anything.

Deontological theories such as the Kantian theory reason is contrary to the consequentialist theories because, unlike in the latter, focus on the morality of actions. It is crucial to note that the nature of this theory follows rational justification (Bennis et al., .192). In this theory, all reasonable persons should be able to act in a manner that shows moral obligation.

According to Kant, we have free will to carry out our moral obligations; therefore, the moral rules themselves do not in any way deny us that free will. Kant views the Categorical Imperative to connect rationality and freedom (Krasemann,69). Therefore, in this case, every rational being should be able to obey the moral rules. Kant also claims that attempts to understand the principle of morality in the past failed to work because people were enslaved and relied on external sources in fulfilling their moral actions (Bennis et al., .192).

The aspect of freedom also comes out in the notion that human beings can reason out and figure out coherently their actions without limiting their freedom (Krasemann 71). Therefore, under this aspect, it is right to say that rational beings enjoy freedom and goodwill in their actions. According to Kant, previous moral systems restricted the freedom of human beings though even rational had to act according to an external source (Krasemann 70). The Kantian theory argues that the ultimate objective of any being is to enjoy free will in their moral actions, whether in terms of moral values or rules.

Conclusion

In conclusion, moral rules give people freedom rather than enslave them. Although in some situations, following those rules may have a constraining effect on the people, moral rules in some way involve goodwill and free will, so they do not really curtail the freedom of people. The reason for arguing in this manner is because even in the Utilitarian approach, moral rules are meant to maximize happiness and pleasure while reducing pain.

Furthermore, any society in this world relies on moral rules to meet their societal needs. Humans are rational beings who have a distinct ability to use their reasoning when committing any action. The motivation of such motives, according to Kant, should focus on the action itself rather than the consequences. In conclusion, it is right to say that moral rules do not limit the freedom of people.

Works Cited

Bayefsky, Rachel. "Dignity, honor, and human rights: Kant's perspective." Political Theory 41.6 (2013): 809-837. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0090591713499762

Bennis, Will M., Douglas L. Medin, and Daniel M. Bartels. "The costs and benefits of calculation and moral rules." Perspectives on Psychological Science 5.2 (2010): 187-202. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1745691610362354

Kant, Immanuel. "Respect for persons." Quest for Goodness.

Lowry, Rosemary, and Martin Peterson. "Cost-benefit analysis and non-utilitarian ethics." Politics, Philosophy & Economics 11.3 (2012): 258-279. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1470594X11416767

Mill, John Stuart. The basic writings of John Stuart Mill: On Liberty, the subjection of women and Utilitarianism. Modern Library, 2010.